|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Big Pharma’s hype barrage |
Big. Flashy. Relentless. Questionable. Those descriptions fit too much wellness hype these days, critics say. They also apply to Big Pharma’s direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising. Anyone who spends any time these days watching the TV — yes, that’s you, 60-plus folks — knows about the drug industry’s wall-to-wall pitching of medications for who knows what conditions out there. The idea is simple: Bang the drum for patients about expensive drugs, in the hope of getting them to ask their doctors to prescribe the meds. The United States and New Zealand are the only two nations on the planet that allow makers such promotional leeway. In this country, critics have assailed this Big Pharma practice, saying it adds unnecessary costs to the medical system — without providing parallel benefits. Instead, patient advocates say, drug makers deploy big ad budgets for branded products with higher costs and lesser effectiveness. As researchers from Johns Hopkins reported earlier this year in a published study: “[A] higher proportion of manufacturer promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer advertising was associated with drugs rated as having lower rather than higher added clinical benefit and with higher total drug sales … “Direct-to-consumer advertising may increase patient requests for advertised products and the likelihood of their prescription by clinicians. Allocating a greater share of promotional spending to consumer advertising (vs promotions that target clinicians) may therefore reflect a strategy to drive patient demand for drugs that clinicians might be less likely to prescribe because either there are several similarly effective alternative treatments available or there is a more effective alternative available.” Critics want lawmakers and regulators to step in to curtail direct-to-consumer drug ads. The government has forced Big Pharma to be more explicit about medications’ side effects leading to stand-up comedy routines on how fast-talking company spokespeople skid over these potentially serious harms. And though a federal watchdog has noted that this drug promotion has measurable effects in increasing taxpayer spending (for example, with Medicare costs), the promotional campaigns seem only to increase on the airwaves, in print, and online. Here’s a thought, though: Might companies flogging wellness and hygiene products and services overpower even Big Pharma’s big spends? Will consumers hit the OFF button on, say, cable channels after getting inundated with ads — extreme in their candor — for stuff like middle-aged men’s libido boosters, deodorant that goes everywhere besides the underarm, toilet tissue with cuddly predators that waggle their backsides, or women’s personal undergarments that make chain mail sound appealing? |
|
||||
|